If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I hate to make predictions, but if you returned the tax rate to its pre-Bush levels I give it a 50-50 chance that yearly revenue would rise 600 billion+, just getting back to Clinton level of tax revenue expectations.

Yes, yes I know not all things are equal, a teetering economy etc. But those cuts nearly killed the country in 5 years, who knows their long term damage.

and you would be WRONG!

To put this into perspective that even the Obamaites will understand:

Every year the US Treasury would collect $4,700,000,000 from the increased income tax on the rich (even though it would be less than that due to a dynamic economics) against a 2011 deficit of $1,480,000,000,000 which broken down is the equivalent of collecting $4.70 against a debt of $14,800.

Give me a $#@!ing break! It's only class warfare from BHO who can not run on his record.
ZERO BASED BUDGETING IS THE WAY TO GO!

I have recently been told twice, once in conversation and once online, that Adam Smith favored progressive taxation—on the second occasion at least, that he favored a progressive income tax. One passage from The Wealth of Nations was offered in support of the claim by both people, some additional ones by the online claimant. The passage:

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

Taxation in proportion to revenue isn't progressive taxation, it's proportional taxation—in modern terminology, a flat tax. The quote not only isn't evidence for the claim, it's evidence against it—important evidence, since it is the first of the maxims of taxation with which Smith introduces his discussion of possible taxes.

Not only is Smith not endorsing a progressive income tax, he isn't endorsing any sort of income tax. Reading further into the passage, he successively rejects taxes on income from capital, taxes on wages, and taxes on the income of professionals. The only income he approves of taxing is the income of government officials. What he is arguing for is a system of taxation whose effect is proportional to income, not a tax on income.

The online claimant offered a number of other quotes which he thought provided evidence that Smith was in favor of progressive taxation. One of them was actually evidence, not that he favored it, but that he regarded a tax that fell more than proportionally on the rich as tolerable--"not very unreasonable."

But the most interesting one was the following:

It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed.

This was offered as evidence that Smith wanted to tax the luxuries of the rich rather than the necessities of the poor. It was offered in the same words, with the same interpretation, on a Daily Kos web page I found which was making the same argument and using the same quotes.

Here is the full paragraph whose first sentence is being (mis)quoted.

It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxurious and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people that ought ever to be taxed. The final payment of any tax upon their necessary expense would fall altogether upon the superior ranks of people; upon the smaller portion of the annual produce, and not upon the greater. Such a tax must in all cases either raise the wages of labour, or lessen the demand for it. It could not raise the wages of labour without throwing the final payment of the tax upon the superior ranks of people. It could not lessen the demand for labour without lessening the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, the fund from which all taxes must be finally paid. Whatever might be the state to which a tax of this kind reduced the demand for labour, it must always raise wages higher than they otherwise would be in that state, and the final payment of this enhancement of wages must in all cases fall upon the superior ranks of people.

Note, first, that the first sentence is talking about "the luxurious and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people." Smith is arguing, not for taxing the luxuries of the rich, but the luxuries of the poor. Changing that to "the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people" makes it possible to misread it as "the luxuries of the rich, and not ... ."

That misreading is impossible if you read the rest of the paragraph. Smith's argument is that a tax on the necessities of the poor will raise wages, hence be paid by the rich, and that one should therefor tax the luxuries of the poor instead. Not only is he not arguing for taxing the rich, he is arguing against taxing the rich.

There is another very popular misreading of Smith which was not made by either of the people I was arguing with, but does show up on the Daily Kos web page and in a variety of other places—the claim that Smith supported public schooling. The web page quotes (from another web page):

For a very small expence the public can facilitate, can encourage, and can even impose upon almost the whole body of the people the necessity of acquiring those most essential parts of education.

Smith has a long discussion of possible ways of organizing and funding education, in the course of which he argues both for and against a variety of alternatives, so it is easy enough to select out a passage which appears to be for government provision, such as this one. For an example on the other side:

"Those parts of education, it is to be observed, for the teaching of which there are no public institutions, are generally the best taught."

His final summary statement on the subject, however, is:

The expense of the institutions for education and religious instruction is likewise, no doubt, beneficial to the whole society, and may, therefore, without injustice, be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society. This expense, however, might perhaps with equal propriety, and even with some advantage, be defrayed altogether by those who receive the immediate benefit of such education and instruction, or by the voluntary contribution of those who think they have occasion for either the one or the other.

Or in other words, some public funding of schooling is not unjust, but an entirely private system is also not unjust and might even be preferable.

It's also worth noting that the public involvement he is considering is much less than what we take for granted. Thus he writes, immediately after the sentence that the web page quotes:

The public can facilitate this acquisition by establishing in every parish or district a little school, where children may be taught for a reward so moderate that even a common labourer may afford it; the master being partly, but not wholly, paid by the public, because, if he was wholly, or even principally, paid by it, he would soon learn to neglect his business.

Not, I think, an opinion that supporters of our public school system would be willing to endorse.

I find it amusing that the Daily Kos piece starts out with:

"Conservatives love to quote Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism. But I doubt that many of them have actually read his works."

The author of that also likes to quote Smith—and also has not read his works.

Defense spending = 19% of the budget and is constitutional
Entitlements = 58% of the budget and not constitutional.

Is it any wonder the libs want to gut the one that protects them and is specifically stated as legal in the constitution, while ignoring the item that is illegal and makes up the largest portion of expenditures? No. typical.

linux et al have still not answered the claims on Page 1; instead they shifted to "oil".

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The Democrats play to their base (i.e. minorities and minority-sympathizers) by starting class warfare. They paint the rich as evil in hopes of generating hysteria and anger.

linux et al have still not answered the claims on Page 1; instead they shifted to "oil".

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The Democrats play to their base (i.e. minorities and minority-sympathizers) by starting class warfare. They paint the rich as evil in hopes of generating hysteria and anger.

yep. now that the lynchpin argument of their debt reduction plan has been laughed at for its complete idiocy, they move on to something else with the class warfare games. I mean, what else can they do when they propose getting an extra 47 Billion over 10 years as a solution to a 6 TRILLION dollar problem? I guess liberal would say they could have saved the titanic if they just had 100 more thimbles to use to bail out all that water. Is there really anything left to do other than laugh in their faces? And this is proposed by their alleged savior, the alleged "smartest man to even win the WH". My goodness. yet, there they are the little lap dogs, licking at the boots of "the one" who is going to save them if he can just get that extra 47 billion from those evil rich people.

linux et al have still not answered the claims on page 1; instead they shifted to "oil".

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. The democrats play to their base (i.e. Minorities and minority-sympathizers) by starting class warfare. They paint the rich as evil in hopes of generating hysteria and anger.

We have a stay at home dad bitching at his wife for not earning more money because the credit card got declined at the golf course when he tried to buy a new Big Bertha driver to match his new golf shirt while the kids are at day camp.

If Buffett and Obama think they should be paying taxes at a higher rate than their secretaries, be my guest. This is primer fluid for the larger battle brewing over tax increases at the end of the year.

When the stay at home dad is spending too much on the credit card for $#@! the family cannot afford, you cut up the credit card and put him on a budget. You don't expect the wife to go out an get a second job so Daddy-Dullard can enjoy his golf game a little more.

We have a stay at home dad bitching at his wife for not earning more money because the credit card got declined at the golf course when he tried to buy a new Big Bertha driver to match his new golf shirt while the kids are at day camp.

If Buffett and Obama think they should be paying taxes at a higher rate than their secretaries, be my guest. This is primer fluid for the larger battle brewing over tax increases at the end of the year.

When the stay at home dad is spending too much on the credit card for $#@! the family cannot afford, you cut up the credit card and put him on a budget. You don't expect the wife to go out an get a second job so Daddy-Dullard can enjoy his golf game a little more.

clearly you do not know that the ruling elite are entitled to more of your money than your are. they are just nice enough to let you keep half of it.

only if you assume all wealth belongs to the fed govt in the first place. Most people don't assume that

i'd say about half don't believe it, but i guarantee you the current potus thinks it belongs to the fed governmnet. how else can a tax cut need to be "paid for" unless you thought the money was yours in the first place? talking about "spending through the tax code". the only possible way that can be a valid statement is if you think the money belongs to the government, and it is a cost to let those who earned it keep it.

lower taxes rates is a redistribution of wealth, just as much as raising tax rates are.

Holy Christ. This is possibly one of the most idiotic things ever said in the Cloak Room, and that is saying something. If you lower taxes and allow people to keep more of the money THEY EARN, how in $#@!'s sake is that a redistribution of wealth? Wow, just wow. What the $#@! are they teaching now?

only if you assume all wealth belongs to the fed govt in the first place. Most people don't assume that

This is absolute fact- he starts from the perspective that all money is the government's and if they let you keep a little more of it then that's foundationally the same as if they decide to take from you and buy FREE BIRTH CONTROL!!!! or whatever the cause of the day is.

This is absolute fact- he starts from the perspective that all money is the government's and if they let you keep a little more of it then that's foundationally the same as if they decide to take from you and buy FREE BIRTH CONTROL!!!! or whatever the cause of the day is.

Its all premised upon the idea that a person is not entitled to the wealth that he earns. Hummmmmm....wonder where our illustrious POTUS got the idea from? Hummmmm, lets see:

The most stunning thing about it is that we give more than $100 mil in tax credits to people who pay no income taxes. Plus, only 85 million of us pay any taxes at all (58 million of filers are non-payers -- clearly the one's claiming tax credit "refunds". . . never understood how a person can get a refund when he pays nothing in).

– Americans making over $50,000 paid most of the federal taxes that were paid in the U.S. in 2010.

According to statistics compiled from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by the Tax Foundation, those people making above $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent, and carried 93.3 percent of the total tax burden.

In contrast, Americans making less than $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 3.5 percent and their total share of the tax burden was just 6.7 percent.

Americans making more than $250,000 had an effective tax rate of 23.4 percent and their total share of the tax burden was 45.7 percent.

Out of the 143 million tax returns that were filed with the IRS in 2010, 58 million – or 41 percent – of those filers were non-payers.

In other words, only 85 million actually paid taxes.

But Tax Foundation data also shows that people who didn’t pay any income tax received $105 billion in refundable tax credits from the IRS.

Additionally, statistics from the Tax Foundation shows that the federal tax code is 3.8 million words long – 3.5 times longer than all seven books of J.K. Rowling’s famous Harry Potter series combined.

According to Scholastic.com, the total word count of all seven Harry Potter books is 1,083,594 words with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone being the shortest (76,944 words) and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix the longest (257,045).

In contrast, the federal tax code is 3.8 million words, almost a tripling of its size since 2001 when the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the tax code to be 1,395,000, and almost doubling its size since the Tax Foundation's estimates in 2001.

Want to take a big chunk out of the deficit? Stop giving refunds to non-payers.

The most stunning thing about it is that we give more than $100 mil in tax credits to people who pay no income taxes. Plus, only 85 million of us pay any taxes at all (58 million of filers are non-payers -- clearly the one's claiming tax credit "refunds". . . never understood how a person can get a refund when he pays nothing in).

How is doing away with $100 million in give aways going to take a "big chunk" out of the deficit? It's a drop in the bucket.

Typo Wulaw Horn. Thanks for pointing that it. I meant to say billion. The number is $105 billion The biggest culprit would of course be the Earned Income Tax Credit. This number is more than 20 times the amount Obama wants to get from the Buffet tax.

Ok. Even at 100 billion you aren't talking about all that sizeable a chunk in contrast to a 1.5 trillion dollar budget deficit. There are other places I'd cut first and harder before I cut EITC.

That's true, but its the hypocrisy that is so stunning. All these people who are non-payers and get these tens of billions in the EITC refunds for monies never paid in: who do you think the vast majority of them support? Let me provide a hint: its almost certainly the guy campaigning on "we need to share the wealth more" to give others a "fair shot."

Ah, lots of contrary opnion on this one, as evidence by all the comments that follow any claims abou this progressive spirit. Adam Smith was not someone who was all that concerned about the plight of the aristorcracy.

You have good fairness arguments for both a flat rate and a progressive tax. You probalby have people making arguments for a flat amount tax.

Ah, lots of contrary opinion on this one, as evidenced by all the comments that follow any claims about this progressive spirit. Adam Smith was not someone who was all that concerned about the plight of the aristorcracy.

The pinkos parse a section of his writing on where he describes different consumption taxes based on whether the item was a necessity or a luxury. Adam Smith believe necessities should be taxed little or not at all; luxuries at a higher rate.

Fellow travelers have used this tired old parsing again and again to exclaim - "Look - Adam Smith favored a progressive income tax!"

It isn't true. It is an old socialist agitprop point. It isn't even close to being the truth.

If you want to tax BMW's but not bread - then you have support from Adam Smith. You want to tax a $200,000 wage earner at a higher rate than a $20,000 wage earner? Adam Smith believed taxing either income is absurd and destructive. He may be wrong, but it's foolish to assert he favored a progressive income tax on incomes.

He did favor income taxes on bureaucrats because they were not subject to market conditions, but no need to explore that subject here. Unless you want to talk about bureaucrats as the modern aristocracy.

The pinkos parse a section of his writing on where he describes different consumption taxes based on whether the item was a necessity or a luxury. Adam Smith believe necessities should be taxed little or not at all; luxuries at a higher rate.

Fellow travelers have used this tired old parsing again and again to exclaim - "Look - Adam Smith favored a progressive income tax!"

It isn't true. It is an old socialist agitprop point. It isn't even close to being the truth.

If you want to tax BMW's but not bread - then you have support from Adam Smith. You want to tax a $200,000 wage earner at a higher rate than a $20,000 wage earner? Adam Smith believed taxing either income is absurd and destructive. He may be wrong, but it's foolish to assert he favored a progressive income tax on incomes.

He did favor income taxes on bureaucrats because they were not subject to market conditions, but no need to explore that subject here. Unless you want to talk about bureaucrats as the modern aristocracy.

So I am ready to agree that Adam Smith is irrelevant to the particulars of income taxation debates? Fair enough?

Well this thread detiorated into ideology. If you cannot see the trillion dollar hole left by bush before 08 then there is no debate possible. The country is $#@!ed and your ideological extremism (no new taxes ever) is the end result: deficits and debt.

Well this thread detiorated into ideology. If you cannot see the trillion dollar hole left by bush before 08 then there is no debate possible. The country is $#@!ed and your ideological extremism (no new taxes ever) is the end result: deficits and debt.

really? It's a wonder Greece is in a financial mess. I mean they taxed the rich at 90% for decades.

The tax rate is a $#@!ing sideshow: the only people that it affects are upper middle class wage earners. Morons, who believe that these people are "the idle rich", eat that $#@! up. Warren Buffett did not become crazy wealthy by suggesting retarded stuff like taxing the $#@! out of him.

However, these threads do a great job of outing morons who cannot $#@!ing add.

really? It's a wonder Greece is in a financial mess. I mean they taxed the rich at 90% for decades.

This is not about greece this is about what happened between 01-07 and the inability of you people seeing it. Your ideology blinds you when I see a graph with valid data I do not close my eyes. You do not even posit alternative theories anymore about the trillion dollar elephant in the room instead you wax poetic about it not being the government's to begin with.

Its good that you do blame bush for his needless spending. Congrats you passed the litmus test of non-partisanship, but you fail on the ideology one.

This is not about greece this is about what happened between 01-07 and the inability of you people seeing it. Your ideology blinds you when I see a graph with valid data I do not close my eyes. You do not even posit alternative theories anymore about the trillion dollar elephant in the room instead you wax poetic about it not being the government's to begin with.

Its good that you do blame bush for his needless spending. Congrats you passed the litmus test of non-partisanship, but you fail on the ideology one.

Yes, in '07 the housing bubble started to burst. But there had been economic growth fueling substantial increases in government revenues for almost four years before then. Those increases began very soon after the second round of the Bush tax cuts.

This is not about greece this is about what happened between 01-07 and the inability of you people seeing it. Your ideology blinds you when I see a graph with valid data I do not close my eyes. You do not even posit alternative theories anymore about the trillion dollar elephant in the room instead you wax poetic about it not being the government's to begin with.

Its good that you do blame bush for his needless spending. Congrats you passed the litmus test of non-partisanship, but you fail on the ideology one.

what? Your ideology blinds you from the fact it is the spending. Greece taxed the $#@! out of the rich and the rich disappeared and tax evasion became a national game. Yet the Greek government continued to spend and pay insane salaries and pensions. Is that the US you envision?

A year ago, in Action Comics, Superman declared plans to renounce his U.S. citizenship.

"'Truth, justice, and the American way' — it's not enough anymore," the comic book superhero said, after both the Iranian and American governments criticized him for joining a peaceful anti-government protest in Tehran.

Last year, almost 1,800 people followed Superman's lead, renouncing their U.S. citizenship or handing in their Green Cards. That's a record number since the Internal Revenue Service began publishing a list of those who renounced in 1998. It's also almost eight times more than the number of citizens who renounced in 2008, and more than the total for 2007, 2008 and 2009 combined.

But not everyone's motivations are as lofty as Superman's. Many say they parted ways with America for tax reasons.

The United States is one of the only countries to tax its citizens on income earned while they're living abroad. And just as Americans stateside must file tax returns each April — this year, the deadline is Tuesday — an estimated 6.3 million U.S. citizens living abroad brace for what they describe as an even tougher process of reporting their income and foreign accounts to the IRS. For them, the deadline is June.

The National Taxpayer Advocate's Office, part of the IRS, released a report in December that details the difficulties of filing taxes from overseas. It cites heavy paperwork, a lack of online filing options and a dearth of local and foreign-language resources.

For those wishing to legally escape the filing requirements, the only way is to formally renounce their U.S. citizenship. Last year, IRS records show that at least 1,788 people did, and that's likely an underestimate. The IRS publishes in the Federal Register the names of those who give up their citizenship, and some who renounced say they haven't seen their name on the list yet.

The State Department said records it keeps differ from those published by the IRS. They indicate that renunciations have remained steady, at about 1,100 each year, said an official.

The decision by the IRS to publish the names is referred to by lawyers as "name and shame." That's because those who renounce are seen as willing to give up their citizenship primarily for financial reasons.

There's also an "exit tax" for the very rich who choose to leave. During the last 25 years, a number of millionaires and billionaires have renounced their citizenship. Among them: Ted Arison, the late founder of Carnival Cruises [CCL Loading... () ], and Michael Dingman, a former Ford Motor [F Loading... () ] director.

But those of more modest means renounce, too. They say leaving America is about more than money; it's about privacy and red tape.

Liability, Not Priviledge

On April 7, 2011, Peter Dunn raised his right hand before a U.S. consular officer in Toronto and swore that he understood the consequences of giving up his U.S. citizenship. Dunn, a dual U.S.-Canadian citizen who has lived outside the United States since 1986, says he renounced because he felt American citizenship had become more of a liability than a privilege.

As an American, Dunn had to file tax returns and report all of his bank accounts - even joint accounts and his Canadian retirement fund. If he didn't, he would be breaking U.S. law and could face penalties of up to $100,000 or 50 percent of his undeclared accounts, whichever is larger. Dunn says he was tired of tracking IRS policy changes, and he had no intention of returning to the United States. Renouncing his citizenship, as he puts it, was "a no-brainer."

"If it was just me then it would be one thing," says Dunn, a part-time investor who worried that having to share information with the IRS would deter future business partners - and upset his wife, who is Canadian. "Disclosing joint accounts I hold with my wife and anyone I ever want to do business with — that's just too much. My wife's account is none of their business."

Dunn, who blogs about expatriation, takes issue with being characterized as a tax evader. He says the taxes he pays in Canada are higher than what he would pay in the United States, and he says he had always complied with the IRS before renouncing. But, Dunn says, the IRS approach to enforcing compliance is misguided. "It's making life difficult for a lot of people," he says. "It's driving us away."

Old, New Regulations

Dunn is referring to two filing requirements that affect Americans abroad: the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts — which has been around since 1970 but now carries penalties for noncompliance — and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, passed in 2010 with the aim of reducing offshore tax evasion.

The first regulation requires all Americans, including those living abroad, with at least $10,000 in overseas bank accounts, to file a supplementary form disclosing all of their foreign accounts. That includes any accounts in which the U.S. citizen has a financial interest. That could include a joint account with a spouse or child, accounts for corporations in which the American owns more than 50 percent of the value of shares of stock, or any trust or estate that benefits the U.S. citizen.

The tax compliance act — the newer law — asks foreign financial institutions such as banks, hedge funds , and private equity funds to provide the IRS with information on U.S. clients.

The United States and five European Union countries recently announced their intent to allow institutions to report the information through their own governments, rather than directly to the IRS. Institutions that do not comply will be subject to a 30 percent withholding tax on certain U.S.-sourced payments and proceeds of property sales beginning in the 2013 tax year - for instance, dividends on investments in U.S. companies.

Some expatriates say they were unaware of the first regulation for years and even decades. In 2008, the IRS received only 218,840 such filings. American nationality law grants citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States or born abroad to American parents, regardless of how much time they've spent in the United States. Many may not even know the extent of their U.S. ties.

In 2004, the stakes for noncompliance rose. Failure to file meant potential fines and criminal charges. Americans abroad can be punished for noncompliance even if they owed no income tax - and IRS data show that most of them don't owe money.

Income up to $95,100 isn't taxed under a rule called the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. In 2009, the income cap was $91,400, and 88 percent of all taxpayers claiming the foreign earned income exclusion owed nothing. Since 2008, the IRS has offered several voluntary-disclosure grace periods during which expatriates can file back taxes without facing criminal charges - but with the possibility of incurring penalties.

Marylouise Serrato, head of American Citizens Abroad, a nonprofit organization based in Geneva, says that many members feel scared about reporting requirements they did not know existed. Their disenchantment, she says, is pushing some to renounce.

"Americans abroad are terrified. We've had people pay tens of thousands of dollars in fines. We've had people . pay huge amounts of back taxes," she says. "Up to this point, we never heard of anyone renouncing, or if they did, they didn't talk about it," says Serrato, who says her group does not advocate renunciation.

"Now," she says, "we're seeing a lot of people speak openly about it and come to us for information."

Congress is taking note. "While I fully support measures that reduce fraud and address offshore havens, the U.S. should not have policies that place undue burdens on legitimate Americans abroad," says Representative Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and the chair of the Congressional Americans Abroad Caucus. Maloney says she has taken the matter to the Department of the Treasury, which oversees the IRS.

'Too Expensive to Keep'

Lawyers report that banking is a big reason why people renounce. "I hear about banking problems again and again and again," says Phil Hodgen, an attorney who has been helping Americans expatriate since 2008. The new reporting rules, he says, pose "a huge administrative burden. It's made Americans too expensive to keep."

Francisca N. Mordi, vice president and senior tax counsel at the American Bankers Association, says she has received a number of calls from Americans in Europe complaining about banks closing their accounts. "They're going to drop Americans like hot potatoes," Mordi says. "The foreign banks are upset enough about the regulations that they're saying they just won't keep American customers, and it's giving (Americans living abroad) a lot of sleepless nights."

Taxpayer complaints sometimes make their way to Nina Olson, the U.S. taxpayer advocate for the IRS, who addressed some of the international tax issues in a December report.

"The complexity of international tax law, combined with the administrative burden placed on these taxpayers, creates an environment where taxpayers who are trying their best to comply simply cannot," the report reads. "For some, this means paying more U.S. tax than is legally required, while others may be subject to steep civil and criminal penalties. For some U.S taxpayers abroad, the tax requirements are so confusing and the compliance burden so great that they give up their U.S. citizenship."

In the same report, the IRS responded to the criticism, stating that the penalties for failing to report foreign accounts issued in its guidelines are maximums, not set amounts. It said the agency will not fine filers if the lapse is due to a "reasonable cause." The IRS also acknowledged the need for more public awareness, and it detailed its efforts to inform Americans overseas through fact sheets, a telephone help line and Twitter.

When you are wrong, its best not to start trying to provide credentials. Just look up why you are wrong.

So if tomorrow the Obamanation came out and said "we are going to drill ANWAR, the oil shale, push forward with coal liquidification, and open up ALL off shore drilling...we're going to make oil,cheap again" that wouldn't change oil prices? Seriously?

Who wants to be long a commodity that is about to see massive increases in supply? I mean besides you and the OP? Oil would be $50 in a month...maybe less.

Look at what is happening to corn. Futures are down $1.50+ since last fall because the corn acres in the US will be record amounts. Potential for a huge crop have driven out speculators and made producers more egar to sell. But once again I don't know what the $#@! I'm talking about.

The amount of oil in the US is staggering. We have just chosen to hold our reserves and buy cheap foreign oil...but we have more energy in the US than most can imagine. Well more than we can burn through in 100 years. Technology will get us off fossil fuels long before that IF we don't destroy the capitalistic engine that has produced most of the worlds innovation.

Interesting theory linux ... but if the Bush tax cuts did that, then why did tax revenues first start falling in March 2000, almost a year before Clinton left office? This was 2 years before the first round of the Bush tax cuts went into effect. And why did that downward slope start in March 2000 and continue all the way to mid-2003? A third of the time we were on that downward slope was under Bill Clinton, and 2/3rds of the time we were on that downward slope was before any of the Bush tax cuts went into effect. Why is that?

Given that history it sure does not seem that the tax cuts had anything to do with revenue loss.

In JMT's mind, deviating from the Democrat party line = partisanship. Everything in the above quote is true. The downward slope in revenues in the early 2000's began under Clinton (he did not leave office until 11 months later). In early 2001 that downward slope accelerated. It continued until mid-2003, until just after the second round of Bush tax cuts went into effect. After that second round of tax cuts revenues spiked upward for almost four years until the latest recession caused by the burst of the housing bubble commenced.

So we were way down (2 years) the first downward slope of tax revenues in the early 2000's by the time the first round of the Bush tax cuts went into effect in the spring of 2002. Something was pushing us down that slope that had nothing to do with the income tax rate. Isn't that obvious since there had yet to have been a rate cut?

All that I mentioned in the preceding two paragraphs are historical facts. There is nothing partisan about it.

On the positive effect of those cuts on tax revenues, I candidly cannot say with 100% certainty that those cuts had anything to do with the spike in revenues that began in mid-2003 (and ended in early '07), but it sure seems fortuitous that that spike began right after the second round of tax cuts went into effect. In any event, based on that spike it logically makes no sense to claim that the tax cuts caused any revenue loss. How could they? Revenues went up until 2007!!!

what? Your ideology blinds you from the fact it is the spending. Greece taxed the $#@! out of the rich and the rich disappeared and tax evasion became a national game. Yet the Greek government continued to spend and pay insane salaries and pensions. Is that the US you envision?

Again we are not talking Greece, but the US with its 33ish percent for the highest upper classes. So don't divert the debate.

This is different though, they are paying taxes twice most likely since not all countries have double taxation treaties. I believe they should pay taxes where they live. (and get representation but that is another topic).

So if tomorrow the Obamanation came out and said "we are going to drill ANWAR, the oil shale, push forward with coal liquidification, and open up ALL off shore drilling...we're going to make oil,cheap again" that wouldn't change oil prices? Seriously?

Who wants to be long a commodity that is about to see massive increases in supply? I mean besides you and the OP? Oil would be $50 in a month...maybe less.

Look at what is happening to corn. Futures are down $1.50+ since last fall because the corn acres in the US will be record amounts. Potential for a huge crop have driven out speculators and made producers more egar to sell. But once again I don't know what the $#@! I'm talking about.

The amount of oil in the US is staggering. We have just chosen to hold our reserves and buy cheap foreign oil...but we have more energy in the US than most can imagine. Well more than we can burn through in 100 years. Technology will get us off fossil fuels long before that IF we don't destroy the capitalistic engine that has produced most of the worlds innovation.

Its a drop in the bucket, you have no idea how exhausted US reserves are.

Its a drop in the bucket, you have no idea how exhausted US reserves are.

So when they tell us we have a 100 years of coal power (everything) AND a 100 yeas of natural gas power AND countless new and know oil reserves (ANWAR, North Dakota, S Tx, CO / UT sands)...these people are all blowing smoke?

Not to mention we don't drill off the coast of anywhere anymore...FL, CA, who knows what is in NE and NW? Even most current off shore is 500 miles off from my understanding...not out of necessity except for Gov intervention.

We've got more than enough energy to get us to the technology needed to get off fossil fuels. At current rate of solar development we'll be able to be 100% solar powered in 15 years or less.

I should point out I'm all for renewable energy...but only when it gets to an economically competitive price. All the windmills, solar panels, ethanol plant, and Solyndra type money being promoted by the Gov is a waste.

The real solution is creating a reward fund...get people and companies investing in development of better technology...not building obsolete and noncompetitive projects today.

Well this thread detiorated into ideology. If you cannot see the trillion dollar hole left by bush before 08 then there is no debate possible. The country is $#@!ed and your ideological extremism (no new taxes ever) is the end result: deficits and debt.

the ideological farce in this comes from the statist like you and the skid mark in cheif whose answer to the trillion dollar year on year hole in the budget is 4.7 billion per year. then when you do actually act as thought you know the real answer, you want to cut the item that is 19% of the budget while never touching the item that makes up 58% of the budget. there is ideology gone wrong here, but it is for those who somehow think the state is the answer to their ills in life while the real world math simply does not work in favor of your utopian platitudes. that is the cold, hard reality. we have a trillion dollar problem, and skid mark has a billion dollar answer. that won't work. ever. doesn't matter which side you're on, Obamas solution is idiotic.